That points to nuclear power and that is stalled by hysterics and 'do nothing' obstructionists.

They are not just after Nuclear power advancement. They are after all advancement and even the general upkeep and improvement of what we have now.

And building below sea level on the coast is freaking stupid.

Only when its done wrong. 'They've been doing it in the Holland region of the Netherlands for centuries with great success.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ows_land_reclamation_in_the_nertherlands.html

Also New Orleans didn't start out below sea level on reclaimed submerged land. It actually started out above by 5 -10 feet but after enough years of dewatering swampy areas to make it more stable in order to increase the size of the habitable city area it started sinking.

Lots of reading here on the subject.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why....69i57j0l5.11412j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Thank you TCM

A 'Can do' attitude. That's a good thing.

Get the Army Corp of Engineers down to New Orleans and cut them loose!

Actually I think there is a national Civil Engineers.

The overall idea is to get the flooding water and pipe it west.

 

Thank you TCM

A 'Can do' attitude. That's a good thing.

Get the Army Corp of Engineers down to New Orleans and cut them loose!

Actually I think there is a national Civil Engineers.

The overall idea is to get the flooding water and pipe it west.

So you want to build a pipeline from New Orleans to San Diego?
Based on the Alaska pipeline that would cost about $64 billion and deliver 100 million gallons per day. You can build a desalinization plant that size for about $1 billion.
I'm trying to remember the last time a hurricane hit the Netherlands.

 

How about tapping into the Mississippi up river.

Maybe the westernmost Great Lake?

Think it depends where feeders empty into the Mississippi.

In general. Yes. A pipeline or more than one pumping water to the west.

I think there would be a lot of takers to move into new lands.

More farming, industries and homes.

 

How about tapping into the Mississippi up river.

Maybe the westernmost Great Lake?

Think it depends where feeders empty into the Mississippi.

In general. Yes. A pipeline or more than one pumping water to the west.

I think there would be a lot of takers to move into new lands.

More farming, industries and homes.

There is one big cautionary tale that I hope is not forgotten.

http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm

Yes, the areas are not the same. However the concept is - taking something that developed naturally over a large period of time and thinking that we actually understand the dynamics at play...

 

How about tapping into the Mississippi up river.

Maybe the westernmost Great Lake?

Think it depends where feeders empty into the Mississippi.

In general. Yes. A pipeline or more than one pumping water to the west.

I think there would be a lot of takers to move into new lands.

More farming, industries and homes.

Elevation changes are the key issue with moving water any distance. Moving a lot of water uphill take a huge amount of energy of which only about half at best is feasibly recoverable on the downhill side and every stage either way is spendy to implement.

The problem with arid to near to full desert like areas such as the southwest is that they need something like 500,000 - 1,000,000 gallons of water minimum per square mile per day to be remotely feasible crop land for most crops that are of value. Multiply that out bye 10's of thousands of square miles and the water requirement at certain times of the year are and where those sources that could support such a demand are located and it's way beyond our present technology and financial capabilities to work with.

Given the Alaskan pipeline comparison that covers an area of about 10 x10 miles up to 10 x 20 miles. Not that big.

On a engineering forum I hang out at a few years ago some people started kicking around the idea of what it would take to implement a national bulk water transportation system similar to how our interstates work where water from places having a surplus could send it to places that needed it.

We would need a grid of ~ 100 foot diameter or larger pipes set up on a ~ 50 mile gridwork to carry the volumes needed and the cost to implement given today's technology would be beyond the world gross financial budget covering 1 - 2, if not more, decades.

Canals only work going down hill and water only goes uphill in pipes with pumps pushing it.

 

TCM Thank you for that thoughtful post.

Will respond after breaktime.

Found the smiley face menu!

 

Canals only work going down hill and water only goes uphill in pipes with pumps pushing it.

Siphoning could help smooth out most of the bumps but any net elevation increase would still be a huge problem. You could fill Death Valley and collect energy in the process! But there are plenty of other engineering challenges without the elevation ones. Any useful quantity of water is just too huge.

 

Wayne

What are you saying here?

Only that it would be inappropriate for government to geologically or socially engineer at the scale you're talking about, as the Khmer Rouge forced upon the Cambodians in the link I was responding to. When natural forces and incentives favor humans putting themselves into arid regions, that will happen. Right now they are voting with their feet and preferring to live in cities. You're free to live where you want. Rural land should be cheaper than ever, compared to urban land.

 

You should be able to get any amount of water you want.........about 6-7 miles deep. Might not even need to pump.

 

Wayne Thanks!

'Any useful quantity of water is just too huge.'

'It's too big!'

'Luke. That is why you fail'.

The move west is unfinished. The west needs rail, cheap electricity water and highways to realize it's promise.

New settlement would create economic opportunities.

It requires new thinking to move into the future in a constructive way.

 

Wayne

'inappropriate for government to geologically or socially engineer at the scale you're talking about'.

You're advocating 'do nothing' government.

The role of government is to provide for the public well being.

Defense spending provides safety. Law enforecement spending provides safety.

Government provides standards of life.

Overcrowding and lack of economic growth is unhealthy for the public.

I see when I travel people living in spacious areas are relaxed and happier.

 

It's virtually desert from west Texas to the Calfornia cost.

I'm assuming your talking about west Texas in the I-40 area. There is a river running from New Mexico called the Canadian River. It is dammed in NM and they are releasing the water as they see fit. I don't know if it's within the limits of their agreement with Texas or not.

The Army Corp of Engineers were tasked by Congress to do what they do. Of course, you could argue that those positions can go the OMB-A76 route.

Actually I think there is a national Civil Engineers.

Got a cite? If your talking about this group, http://www.asce.org/ they are an association.

 

You're advocating 'do nothing' government.

Nothing more than their constitutional duties, yes. They have no authority to do anything more.

 

Wayne

'Nothing more than their constitutional duties, yes. They have no authority to do anything more.'

I take your talking about strangling the governments intake of funds.

In that the belief the money will be squandered and stolen.

I guess there are a fair amount of people that think that way.

I will address that.

 

I see when I travel people living in spacious areas are relaxed and happier.

That's because we have lots of space to hide the bodies of our enemies in and everyone knows it! Pretty hard to find a unmarked grave in a plowed field!

 

Siphoning could help smooth out most of the bumps but any net elevation increase would still be a huge problem.

Unfortunately siphoning only works to about 33 feet to elevation change at best.

Beyond that it just cavitates under the high vacuum created by its own weight and on long distances it's pretty easy to pass that ~ 33 foot elevation change going the wrong way.

 

California is overdeveloped because of the continuous inflow of government money from the state and federal government.

Obama and Hillary Clinton visited the San Francisco area at least 28 times from 2010 to 2016 in order to raise $$$ from special interests of all types and all those special interests got a big return on their investment. However all that federal $$$ flowing into the San Francisco Bay Area economy is creating raging inflation and wreaking havoc on everyone. We've got double digit inflation, traffic congestion, and homeless encampments are sprouting up all over the area.

On the subject of water supply, this year was extremely wet and there's water all over the place. The problem is the state hasn't built enough storage facilities or maintained the existing ones so a lot of the winter rains will just flow back to the ocean without being used by anyone.

 

'state hasn't built enough storage facilities or maintained the existing ones so a lot of the winter rains will just flow back to the ocean without being used by anyone.'

Inertia. Plus the state government is overwhelmed.

If you gave a corp of PHD's free rein it would take them awhile just to figure out what

is going on.

Let alone develop a plan to set things right.

A solid case for the RIGHT kind of political reform.

California has become a 'how not to'.

Runaway development with giveaway deals to the develpers.

'Oh. We're so frightened and hysterical they will go some where else!!'

So what! Let them.

Yes the cycle of campaign contributions by huge outfits needs to end.

Old rule was 'any seeming sign of corruption'.

Phffft! That's gone with the wind.

 

The Great Lakes Alliance has anticipated the Great Lakes Water Grab and has taken steps to make it illegal.

https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/protecting-great-lakes-water/